Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create app installation', which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the format of the response. The technical endpoint hint suggests a POST request, but this is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior in an agent context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with no wasted words, consisting of a single phrase and a technical endpoint hint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the technical endpoint information ('[Platform - Developer Tools/App Marketplace] POST /rest/v1.0/app_installations') is extraneous for an AI agent's understanding and could be considered clutter, slightly reducing efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (a creation tool with 4 required parameters including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what an 'app installation' is, the context of use, expected outcomes, or error conditions. The agent is left with significant gaps despite the well-documented schema, as the description does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and contextual information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Third party application UID', 'Project ID. Note: Only one of project_id or company_id is required.'). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create app installation' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb or resource context beyond the name, and does not distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_app_configuration', 'create_company_webhooks_hook_v2_0'). While it implies a creation action, the purpose remains vague about what an 'app installation' entails in this platform.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when installing an app is needed), or any sibling tools that might be related (like 'list_app_installations_v1_0'). The inclusion of '[Platform - Developer Tools/App Marketplace] POST /rest/v1.0/app_installations' is technical endpoint information, not usage guidance for an AI agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.